ELSEVIER ADV,\NCED

l[-( HN()I O(i~

Technovation, 16(8) (1996) 397-409 Copyright 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved (1166-4972/96 $15.00 + 0.00

The balancingof empowerment

A strategic resource based model of organizing innovation activities in service and Iow-tech firms
Jon Sundbo Department of Social Sciences, Roskilde University, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark

Abstract
The empowerment of employees as corporate entrepreneurs in the innovation process is important. However, it is also important to control, and thus balance, it. This article tries to answer two questions: Do firms stimulate and balance innovation empowerment, and, if so, how do they organize and manage it? First, innovation empowerment is discussed theoretically within the framework of the resource based theory of the firm. Firms might establish two systems of organizing innovation activities. One is the expert system (~pically R&D departments'), the other is the empowerment system. The empowerment system is particularly important for Iow-tech and service firms. The empowerment system is organized corporate entrepreneurship which is controlled by the management--in contrast to free (uncontrolled) corporate entrepreneurship. The argument for controlling empowerment is that it may easily use too many resources. Second, the two questions are discussed empirically on the basis of case studies in Danish firms. Nearly all firms practised empowerment stimulation. A fewer, but still most, practised empowerment control. Inducement mechanisms which stimulate the empowerment and control mechanisms were found. Strategy, particular innovation departments and practical instruments for procuring ideas were the most important inducement mechanisms. Networking and empowerment of customers were under-utilized mechanisms. The most important control mechanisms were the strategy and a linear organization of the innovation process. Organizational learning is the most efficient control mechanism, but is difficult to practise. A model of the balance system is put forward. Copyright 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd

1. INTRODUCTION
The involvement of employees in the innovation process as corporate entrepreneurs (empowerment in Kanter's (1983) terms) poses a dilemma for management. Empowerment is crucial to firms, especially non-high-tech ones, if they are to grow and maintain competitive advantage. Thus, research has concluded

that it should be stimulated (e.g. Peters and Waterman, 1982; Kanter, 1983; Pinchot, 1985; Drucker, 1985). However, if empowerment gets out of control, it can lead to losses. It is a part of management's task to balance the encouragement and restriction of empowerment (Sundbo, 1992b; Simons, 1994, 1995). This article tries to answer two questions: Do firms

0166-4972(96)00029-6

TechnovationVol. 16 No. 8

397

J.Sundbo

stimulate and balance innovation empowerment, and, if so, how do they organize and manage it? The article does so by presenting case studies of Danish firms that were undertaken to investigate the innovation processes outside the normal R&D activities. The analysis is an attempt to contribute to the understanding of innovation processes from a resource based view. This means that innovation processes are understood in terms of the firms' utilization of their resources (Rumelt et al., 1994; Teece and Pisano, 1994; Wegloop, 1995). The article opens by presenting the theoretical framework of this analysis, that is, the earlier theoretical discussions on empowerment, the resource based view of innovation and a theoretical development of the arguments for balancing empowerment. The second part of the article discusses, in detail, how firms manage and organize empowerment. This is done on the basis of empirical results from case studies of Danish firms (cf. Sundbo, 1992a, 1994). These case studies have produced insights into the management of empowerment in a variety of firms.

Further, it included a survey of a representative sample of employees and managers in one insurance company and one payment transmission company (184 respondents). It also includes a postal survey of key persons in the financial services industry concerning the evolvement of the most important innovations (a total of 84) in that industry. The results are presented here as the outcome of the qualitative analysis of the interviews, the surveys and the documentary material. They are discussed and generalizations are made from them following the method of grounded theory (cf. Glaser and Strauss, 1970). The purpose is to develop a model of the management and organization of empowerment on the basis of the empirical results. This model should include all the empowerment stimulation and restriction instruments that were found in the case studies. This does not mean that each firm uses all the instruments. The model is presented in the conclusion.

3. DEFINmONOFCORECONCEPTS
I shall define the concept of innovation in a rather broad sense. Innovations can be technological as well as social. They can be process, product, organizational or marketing innovations. By empowerment I here mean the involvement of employees in the innovation process. Innovation empowerment is corporate entrepreneurship which is carried out in the organization by many employees and managers and which is stimulated by the management (Kanter, 1983; cf. also models of organic organization, Burns and Stalker, 1961; Nystrrm, 1979).

2. METHODS EMPIRICAL AND BASIS

The question of whether firms stimulate and balance empowerment is investigated by studying whether some of the firms in these case studies are doing this. The intention has not been to do a representative study that can show how many firms consciously organize the corporate entrepreneurship and how many succeed in optimizing the balance. The primary aim of the study has been to investigate how firms organize and manage to balance empowerment. I have been searching for the instruments that the case firms which consciously stimulate and balance empowerment have used for encouraging and balancing it. Most in-depth studies have been carried out in service firms. This has included five banks, two insurance companies, two payment transmission companies, five consultancy firms, four tourist companies (producing holiday trips), two transportation companies, and one manual service company (producing cleaning, catering, hospital services, etc.): a total of 21 service firms. However, some supplementary case studies have also been carried out in seven manufacturing firms. These included one small machine factory, one large machine factory (producing temperature regulation automatic products), a medical factory, a firm producing print plates, a sugar factory, a packing factory and a radio/television factory. Five are low-tech firms, and two are high-tech. The case studies were done in the period 1990-94. The empirical material consists of qualitative interviews (96 interviews) and documentary material.

4. THETHEORETICAL BASIS: RESOURCE THE BASED OR STRATEGICAL APPROACH INNOVATION TO

The human resources of the firm very often have large innovative potential which could be utilized. This aspect of innovation may be understood and interpreted within the framework of the emerging resource based view on innovation which will be the theoretical basis for this article. The resource based view of the firm, developed by Penrose (1959), has lately been applied to the field of innovation (Teece and Pisano, 1994). Penrose established this theory by emphasizing not just production factors, but also the other resources that the firm possesses, primarily management resources. The innovation resources are also important for the firm. They constitute what Teece and Pisano (1994) call the dynamic capability of the firm. The resource based view implies that the firm has several resources. They must be used in an optimal form and amount according to the situation of the firm. The innovative capability of the firm can be

398 TechnovatJon 16 No.8 Vol.

The balancingof empowerment

defined as the amount of innovative resources plus the ability of the firm to activate these resources-and to de-activate them if necessary so that a critical quantity of resources will not be lost. The procurement of innovative resources and their regulation is management's task, which is connected to the strategy because the strategy expresses the market and production situation of the firm. Thus, it also ought to express the firm's objectives concerning innovation. The innovation resources are an evolutionary advantage for the firm and should be used when the firm needs innovations. This could be in situations where the product life cycle is going down and innovations are needed to obtain a better market position. However, not all strategies emphasize innovations equally. How much innovation and which resources are emphasized depends on the external situation of the firm and thus which strategy it chooses. The connection of innovation capability to strategy is the reason why this approach could also be called the strategic innovation approach (cf. Porter, 1990; Sundbo, 1992b). Decision on the use of the different innovation resources is therefore a strategic management task. One of these resources is the general innovative resources of the employees which is discussed in this article. The article is a contribution to the development of the resource based or strategic approach to innovation. It does this by dealing with one of the central innovation resources of the firm: the human resource. The broad definition of innovation which is stated above is natural when innovation is seen within the tradition of the evolutionary theory of the firm (e.g. Nelson and Winter, 1982; Andersen, 1994) and in the evolving resource based or strategical view of innovation (Rumelt et al., 1994; Porter, 1990). The latter is developed within an evolutionary framework. These traditions aim at developing innovation theory from one which only characterizes innovations as an exceptional situation of economic disequilibrium to one which characterizes it as a steady situation for firms. The economy is permanently changing and innovation is not an exception. Permanent innovation and continuous change increasingly become a characteristic of the modern firm that maintains its competitiveness (Nelson and Winter, 1982; Teece, 1987). It must constantly improve its innovative resources. That also means that innovation has many dimensions: it can be technological or social, process, product or marketing innovation, etc.

entrepreneurship as an organized and managed phenomenon is more in keeping with the situation in modern firms.

5.1 Free corporate en~epreneurship as a model of the innova'don process

Innovation within existing firms has been studied as the activity of many individual corporate entrepreneurs (Pinchot, 1985; Mintzberg, 1989; Strategic Management Journal, 1990). Pinchot (1985) and Mintzberg (1989, p. 11) call it intrapreneurship, the Strategic Management Journal calls it corporate entrepreneurship, which is the term chosen here. Corporate entrepreneurship has primarily been studied as a social activity, i.e. as the display of psychological and sociological traits of individuals (cf. Kanter, 1983). Corporate entrepreneurship is an individualistic phenomenon, which has just been moved into existing firms. This could be called free entrepreneurship: innovation depends on the existence of individual corporate entrepreneurs who get new ideas and fight to realize them. Free corporate entrepreneurship is similar to the competitive market situation of the classic independent entrepreneur who establishes his own enterprise. Both types of entrepreneurs are situated in a free market situation. The free corporate entrepreneurs must compete with each other to get their ideas accepted and implemented within the firm. Entrepreneurs are also economic characters that must be assumed to be driven by economic incentives. Several authors have discussed the entrepreneur as an economic agent (e.g. Schumpeter, 1934; Leibenstein, 1966; Casson, 1982; Kirzner, 1973; Baumol, 1968; Binks and Vale, 1990). Most of this theoretical discussion deals with the classic entrepreneur (the founder of the firm) who is a market agent. However, the models could be valid even if we are dealing with corporate entrepreneurs. That would demand that they get economic gains. Whether this is the case, 1 will discuss in the empirical part of the article. Free entrepreneurship is a diffuse phenomenon for the firm and it cannot be handled rationally.

5.2 Organized enb'eprenem'shipas a model

However, corporate entrepreneurship does not need to be interpreted as the behaviour of individual market agents inside the corporation. It can be interpreted as an organized process. There is an organization that regulates the resources, in this case the resources for innovation activities. This is a theoretical understanding which is in agreement with the tradition of theory of economic organization (e.g. Williamson, 1975). In some situations an organization of economic activities is better than the market mechanism. It can be argued that this is the case in corporate entrepreneurship.

5. INNOVATION AN ORGANIZED AS PROCESS

It will be argued in this section that corporate entrepreneurship has mostly been considered as an individual, f r e e - - o r nearly anarchist--phenomenon. It will also be argued that a model of corporate

Tedmova'don 16 No.$ 399 Vol.

J. Sundbo

How can bureaucracies innovate? They are not traditionally associated with creativity and rapid change as characterizes entrepreneurship. One possibility is that bureaucracies establish R&D departments, which would be in the bureaucratic tradition. Another possibility is corporate entrepreneurship as an organized activity within existing firms. How can it be argued that entrepreneurship is more efficient in organized bureaucracies than in individual market setups? The argument for this postulate is that anarchistic individual entrepreneurship often results in a loss. This is the case whether it is the classic entrepreneur establishing his own enterprise or free corporate entrepreneurship. It may result in a sudden amount of value added if the innovation project succeeds, but in most cases the innovation attempt fails with loss of resources as a result. An organized regulation of corporate entrepreneurship activities will create the optimal allocation of resources for innovation activities. At least that is the theoretical postulate along the lines of Williamson's theory. Whether that is so in practice, I will return to in the empirical part of the article.

empowerment system. These two systems compare to high-tech and non-high-tech firms, respectively.

6.1The expertsystem
The expert system is an organization of the innovation process where the firm establishes special resources just for the purpose of innovation. Full-time professional employees are engaged only to work on innovation. This is typically organized in R&D departments. The expert system is a result of the division of labour or specialization of the firm's functions. It is particularly important to high-tech firms, which must allocate a large amount of their resources to innovation activities. High-tech firms are competing on new products. Thus, innovation activities are concentrated on product innovations. Process innovations, organizational and marketing innovations are of less importance. Since high-tech products are complicated and science-based, development of new products demands experts. High-tech firms may also use empowerment, but because of the complex and scientific nature of their products, broad empowerment will not generate many product innovations. Low-tech firms, particularly large firms, may also have a professional expert innovation system. However, many of them, particularly small- and mediumsized ones, do not, or--if they have--it is of less importance to the evolution of the firm. Low-tech firms are not so dependent on radically new products based on scientific results in the same way as hightech firms. Besides, organizational and process innovations which can increase productivity, and market innovations, are at least as important. When developing organizational, process and marketing innovations, it is an advantage to involve the employees generally. The employees know the organization and the production process, they know the customers, and they get new ideas. To service firms the empowerment system is even more (and R&D less) important since they have only a weak tradition for research based products (Sundbo, 1992b). The delivery system is central to their existence and evolution (cf. service management and marketing theory, e.g. Gr6nroos, 1990; Normann, 1991; Eiglier and Langeard, 1988).

5.3 OrganizedenWepreneurship be managed must

Organized regulation means that entrepreneurship is initiated and controlled. A management system must lead this process. Further, the management must be guided. The guidelines could be the strategy of the firm as mentioned. It specifies the market goals for the future and thus presents a framework for future innovations. These should be kept within the framework of the strategy to lead to the specified goal. The management could also specify the innovation activities in relation to the internal and external resources of the firm. The degree of corporate entrepreneurship could depend on how many entrepreneurial resources there are in the organization. Some organizations may have more important resources in high-tech areas and R&D, others may have a workforce that is not particularly entrepreneurial, but is effective and stable. Others again may have their strength in financial management like administrating a large amount of capital. In all these cases it may not be advisable to encourage too much entrepreneurship. Thus, innovation within existing firms may very often be an organized and managed process. Innovation as an organized process is the topic of this article. This article aims at developing a model of organized corporate entrepreneurship. This will be developed further in the following sections.

6.2 The empowermentsystem

This article concentrates on the empowerment system which has received little attention (however, some literature discusses the topic, e.g. Kanter, 1983, 1989; Pinchot, 1985; Burgelman and Sayles, 1986; Strategic Management Journal, 1990; Sundbo, 1992a; Simons, 1994, 1995). In contrast, the expert system has often been studied (cf. Tushman and Moore, 1988; Rothwell and Zegveld, 1985). The empowerment system is a general innovation system which involves most of the people in the firm

6. TWOSYSTEMSOFORGANIZING INNOVATION ACTIVmESWITHINEXISTINGFIRMS

Innovation within existing firms can be organized in two different ways--as an expert system or an

400 TedmovaUon 16 No.8 Vol.

"111e balancingof empowerment

TABLE 1. Systems of organizing innovation activities Innovation system Characteristics Expert system Experts employed with invention and development of innovations, typically in R&D departments Particularly high-tech firms, but also in some Iow-tech firms Empowerment system Broad involvement of many employees in the innovation process. The employees are not necessarily innovation experts Particularly in service tirms and Iow-lech firm',

Firm type

as mentioned. The issue which is discussed here concerns the whole organization of the firm as an evolutionary system of which there are different theories. In Nelson and Winter's (1982) theory, the organizational routines are the core element in the firm's evolution. This theory explains how the firm can interpret and adapt to changes in the environment and, particularly, how the firm's organization can change so it can function in a new way. The theory is developed along the lines of organizational learning (e.g. Argyris and Schtin, 1978). The organizational learning theories explain how organizations adapt in small steps. Innovation in a classic sense and in the way it is interpreted in this article is larger steps---even if it is incremental innovations (Abernathy and Utterback, 1978). The single act of innovation develops the firm suddenly and on a large scale (in a jump) and implies much added value. It is not dependent on changes in detailed organizational routines. It is a more definitive and comprehensive step.

perspectives on the market. Nystrtm (1979, 1990) also combines innovation activities with market possibilities and analyses the innovation process in the enterprise as a broad collective creativity and development process. Even Kanter, in her latest book, emphasizes corporate entrepreneurship as a disciplined behaviour where the entrepreneurs must subordinate themselves to the interest of the company (Kanter, 1989). This literature presents theories and results about how corporate entrepreneurship is encouraged. However, there is also an issue of how to control the entrepreneurship. How is that treated in the literature? Rumelt (1987, pp. 152-154) emphasizes the problems managers have with assessing innovation projects put forward by corporate entrepreneurs. He states that managers are unable to assess such projects e x ante, but will make decisions based on the general reputation of the entrepreneur. Further, corporate entrepreneurs cannot be efficiently punished or rewarded through economic incentives because their income is not tied up to the entrepreneurial activity. Pinchot (1985) states that central control may be inefficient in large companies because the central management cannot overview the whole company. Financial control is necessary as an instrument to control the innovation projects and ensure that not too many resources are wasted. However, the problem is that the benefits of the innovation projects can only be registered in the accounts at the end of the process. One can never know if there will be a benefit until the process is completed. Thus, financial control is of no use as a steering instrument in innovation activities. Pinchot proposes a "positive" financial control system. If employees show successful entrepreneur behaviour, they should get capital and time for innovation projects. Simons (1994, 1995) argues for control systems in contemporary firms which are oriented towards flexibility, innovation and customer care. His aim is broader than analysing corporate entrepreneurship, but his analysis is also relevant to that topic. He has created a model of how the management establishes four organizational systems that can be used for encouraging and controlling creativity empowerment of the employees. Two of these are analytic information systems: one is the diagnostic control system which compares performance on core variables to

7. THEORETICAL DISCUSSIONS HOW OF EMPOWERMENT ORGANIZED MANAGED IS AND

Although organized corporate entrepreneurship has not been investigated much, it has nevertheless been treated by several authors. As early as 1939, Schumpeter discussed the falling dynamic of classic entrepreneurship and a more collective way of organizing the innovation process (Schumpeter, 1939, p. 83; 1943). He was not able, at that time, to specify how this collective organization would look. Drucker (1985) has argued that corporate entrepreneurship can be planned and managed, although it is unclear whether it really is an organization or just anarchic individual activities that can be predicted and influenced. I have published (Sundbo, 1992a) present empirical results which show that the entrepreneurial individual has many possibilities in the first phase of an innovation process. Later on the organization takes over more control and in the last part of the development process towards a final business project the innovation is completely organized and guided by the management. Burgelman and Sayles (1986) have made empirical studies of organized entrepreneurship. They have identified several forms it can take, e.g. project groups, venture departments. They also combine corporate entrepreneurship with strategy. Strategy in firms combines innovation activities with business

TeclmovafdmtVol. 16 No. 8

401

J. Sundbo

goals set up, and the other is the interactive control system which is a more continuous information system. The two others are social systems: one is core values (as emphasized in the corporate culture theories), and the other is a system of boundaries for new ideas that management has set up. The last system secures that unwanted risks are avoided. The discussion in the literature leads to the conclusion that corporate entrepreneurship is developing into an organized process. Management has the task of balancing empowerment--to encourage and control the entrepreneurial process. Rational, economic instruments are inefficient for guiding empowerment.

which will be used in the discussion of the detailed results. The first model expresses a way of understanding the organizational structure of the firms that balance empowerment. The second model expresses the situations in which the firms are mostly emphasizing stimulation and control of empowerment. Both these models were found to be adequate interpretations of the organization in all the firms studied.

9.1A dual organizationmodel

In the case studies, the innovation organizations were interpreted from within a model of dual organization structure. This concept is inspired by Giddens' (1987) structuration theory. Giddens states in his explanation of the function of social systems that the system is determined by individual acts, norms and values and the system is also determining individual patterns of behaviour, norms and values. There is a dual structure. In the corporate entrepreneurship organization the two sides can be termed the looselycoupled interaction structure and the management structure. The loosely-coupled interaction structure is the informal structure of the employees and managers. The term is inspired by the organizational theories of loosely-coupled systems (e.g. Aldrich, 1979). Ideas and entrepreneurship thrive in non-restricted environments as is represented in the informal system existing among the employees. The formal side of organizations is represented by the management system, which expresses the official goals, norms and values of the organization. The management system stimulates and controls empowerment. By using the term management system it is indicated that it is not one manager with one set of norms and values that stimulates and controls empowerment.

8. THEMANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION AND OF EMPOWERMENT. DISCUSSION THEBASISOF A ON EMPIRICAL RESULTS

After having presented theoretical arguments for the necessity for firms to develop an organized and balanced empowerment system, I will now discuss how they organize it. In this section I will refer to the results of the study concerning the way in which the Danish firms organized and managed the balancing of empowerment. From these results I will develop general theses. First, I will briefly discuss how widespread the balancing of empowerment is. It was stated earlier in the article that this was not a representative study of how many firms are balancing empowerment. I can only refer to the situation in the firms studied. Corporate entrepreneurship was practised to a larger or lesser degree in all of them. Most of them encouraged it as well, but again this was in a variety of degrees. Only one firm, a low-tech manufacturing firm (a sugar factory), did not encourage it at all. Of the firms that encouraged empowerment, not all controlled it. Those where no control mechanisms could be observed were one tourist enterprise and four management consultancy firms. The next section is organized in the way that I present all the different mechanisms of empowerment management that I found in the cases. Some of the mechanisms were found in many of the firms studied, others in few. Since the intention is not a representative description, but a qualitative investigation of the forms of organizing the innovation activities, the rate of incidence of each mechanism is not that important. The factors presented in the following are generalized results.

9.2 A two-sidedmodelof empowerment

There are two sides to balancing. One is the procurement of innovation. It could be termed inducement (cf. Binswanger et al., 1978). The term is taken from physics. Here it expresses that the management structure is acting, i.e. the management encourages entrepreneurial activities. This results in activities in the loosely-coupled interaction structure, i.e. entrepreneurship. Evolution of innovations is induced in the loosely-coupled interaction structure. There is also free entrepreneurship where employees or single managers get their own ideas and struggle to realize them without being stimulated by the management structure. These activities can break the management policy, but the results in the Danish case studies suggest that this is very rare. The employees and managers are disciplined and follow the "dance pattern" of the firm (cf. Kanter's book "When the Giants Learn to Dance", 1989). The other side could be termed control. There is

9. MODELS BALANCING INNOVATION OF THE ORGANIZATION

First I will present two theoretical models that provide a general understanding of the organizations

402 Tedmova~on 16No.8 1/ol.

]11e balancing of empowerment

an awareness in the management structure of the possibility of over-allocating resources for empowerment. In some situations this may lead to restrictions in empowerment, but not in all.

10. INDUCEMENT MECHANISMS

In the next sections I will discuss some general statements about empowerment on the basis of the results of the Danish case studies. It will include a series of relevant mechanisms of inducement and control of empowerment. Some of these mechanisms are traditional core factors in innovation theory. Other influential factors were also found in the case studies. Even with respect to the traditional factors, the case studies did not always come out with the same results as are generally referred to in the innovation literature. This was particularly the case in the low-tech and service firms. The inducement mechanisms will be treated in this section and the control mechanisms in the following section.

Generally speaking, the empowerment of customers in low-tech and service areas is difficult, as the case studies showed. It varied as to how much customers were involved in the innovation process in the service firms studied. In the financial services firms the customers were not involved very much. They sometimes suggested ideas, but often they were only involved in the testing of a prototype of a new product. This is due to the fact that the customers only have problems, very rarely solutions. The firms may learn something about the problems, but they cannot directly get new ideas of solution from the customers. The employees may observe and communicate with the customers and from that develop their own ideas. In the manual service firm, the customers were very often deeply involved. It was normal that the development of a new innovation was a common project between the service firm and the customer, which in this case was always a firm. In the other service firms and the manufacturing firms, the customers were involved in a degree between these two extremes. To conclude, generally speaking, the customers are not directly involved in the first, idea-giving stage of the innovation process. They are involved in testing prototypes of new products, marketing etc., but that is very late in the innovation process. This conclusion is in line with that above: the external networking, customer empowerment and forming of an innovation system did not function optimally in all the firms studied.

10.1 Opennessand networking

In the literature, the evolution of innovations and entrepreneurship is often described as depending on the organization's openness to the environments and participation in external networks (Burns and Stalker, 196l; Peters and Waterman, 1982). This may also be an important innovation factor in high-tech industries where one scientist can speak to a professional colleague outside the firm. In the low-tech and service firms investigated in this study, this factor was of some, but absolute minor importance. Most innovations were developed from ideas that came from within the firm. If the ideas came from outside, they were usually cases, imitated from the strongest competitors and this was not the result of open networking. The explanation of the closeness is that the firms were afraid that network partners should imitate their innovations. Service and low-tech innovations are very easy to imitate. These results are confirmed in other Danish investigations of innovation activities. Thus, the importance of openness, networks and external innovation systems to innovation is still an issue where new and more differentiated knowledge can be obtained.

10.3 Strategy
Strategy was the core instrument in the process of balancing empowerment. Here I will discuss how the strategy functioned as an instrument for the inducement of innovations. If the strategy was a very offensive market strategy, it stimulated entrepreneurship activities concerning development of new products. If it was a price leadership strategy (cf. Porter, 1980), it stimulated entrepreneurship activities concerning processes and organizational innovations. If it was a steady strategy where no changes should be made, it did not stimulate entrepreneurship activities. This is an approach to the strategy which sees it as the management's interpretation of the firm's situation and its choice of what to do about it. It is an approach which defines strategy as a political process (cf. Pettigrew, 1992), but not as a completely fluent process as discussed in the chaos approach (Stacey, 1993) or the pure power approach (Knights and Morgan, 1991). The management attempts to make rational choices. Since that is very difficult, it has to take a chance and choose between several alternatives. One interpretation has to win or a compromise

10.2 Empowerment of customers

The involvement of customers has been one of the factors that has been most stressed in innovation research during the last decade (e.g. von Hippel, 1988; Lundvall, 1988). Through service marketing theory (Gr6nroos, 1990; Eiglier and Langeard, 1988), the focus on customers has come into focus. This may also be extended to innovation activities. The customers could provide a central input to the innovation process because they can present their problem which the innovations should solve and perhaps, the solution as well. Empowerment could be extended to customers.

TedmovaSonVol.16 No. 8

403

J. Sundbo

,,

has to be made since a firm normally only has one strategy. This was the interpretation that best fits with the strategy process in the firms studied. The empirical results showed that the management structure strategically steers the innovation process. In so doing, it has power over the loosely-coupled interaction structure. On the other hand, it was a necessity for the management that entrepreneurship appears in the loosely-coupled interaction structure, which thus must have a certain degree of freedom. This was done by allowing free entrepreneurship initiatives at the idea stage of each innovation process. In the later stages, the management interfered more in the process (cf. Sundbo, 1992a). The employees and middle managers may challenge the official strategy. There were several examples of that in the firms studied. Changes initiated by the employees or middle managers went, more often, via the strategy than via free entrepreneurship outside the framework of the strategy.
The strategy can inspire innovations. The empirical results of the case studies show that this is sometimes the case, but the strategy is not used for this purpose nearly as much as it could be. The control aspect becomes the most important. Here we have an innovation potential which is not efficiently utilized by the management.

from the management structure. There is room for some free entrepreneurship even in the most restricted situations, and in a few firms a freer entrepreneurship culture existed. However, the result of the case studies showed that these firms are becoming increasingly rare. Even in consultancy firms, the entrepreneurship culture was becoming more disciplined and subordinate to a strategy.

10.5 Rewards
Entrepreneurial profit or other types of rewards to corporate entrepreneurs have been assumed to be essential to procuring entrepreneurs (e.g. Burgelman and Sayles, 1986). This assumption is developed within the framework of an economic market theory where individuals are driven by the chance of making a profit. In the postal survey of the financial services industry it was asked what reward the corporate entrepreneur received for the most important innovations. The corporate entrepreneurs were only given economic rewards in exceptional cases (11%). They sometimes gained prestige (27% of the cases) and promotion (27%). To a great many of them (36%), innovation was considered as a normal part of their work that did not demand any particular reward. The results, in particular the last, demonstrate that corporate entrepreneurship is more institutionalized than is supposed in much of the literature referred to above.

10.4 Corporate culture

The importance of an entrepreneur-oriented corporate culture is evident and has been stressed by different authors (e.g. Peters and Waterman, 1982; Kanter, 1983). It means that there are entrepreneur values in the informal organization--what is termed here the loosely-coupled interaction system.
However, the Danish case studies found that an entrepreneur-oriented corporate culture as such was not the primary explanation for the innovation activities. The firms did not generally stimulate maximal entrepreneur-oriented cultural values, and when they did, it became dangerous because of the loss of resources (including money). In the most successful innovation processes, there was an entrepreneur-oriented corporate culture, but it was subordinate to the strategy which formed the cultural values. It became the framework for how much entrepreneurship there should be, and how it should be executed. This often produced conflicts between the management and the loosely-coupled interaction structure. Some entrepreneurship-oriented employees and managers tried to break the strategic framework and create their own innovations outside it. In a few situations they succeeded, but mostly they failed, primarily because of resistance from the management. Thus, most entrepreneurs adapted the cultural values of free entrepreneurship to the strategy and other signals

10.6 Innovation department

Four of the service firms in the case studies had established an innovation department which had the purpose of inducing innovations throughout the organization. They should stimulate new ideas and collect them, encourage entrepreneurship and support entrepreneurs. These innovation departments are different from R&D departments. They are not scientifically based research departments. They function as communication centres which collect ideas. They mostly base their work on the ideas of others and they do not develop the innovations further than the first stages. The innovation department might also develop new ideas and innovation projects itself, but can only go through the first idea stages in the innovation process. If a development stage is established, the innovation process is passed over to another organizational unit, typically a project group.

10.7 Top en~epreneur

In two of the service firms studied, the general manager was a corporate entrepreneur himself. These firms were not cases of classic entrepreneurs who had established their own firm. They were well-established large firms which had a top manager of the entrepreneurial type.

404 Teehnovalbn 16No.8 VoL

~e balancing of empowerment

The existence of a top entrepreneur in the two firms meant that corporate entrepreneurship, not only from the top manager, but from all employees, was generally encouraged. There was an extraordinarily large innovation activity based on corporate entrepreneurship in these firms. Most of it was done by the top manager, but some of it was done by employees and other managers. The degree of broad empowerment was not among the highest, nor among the lowest.

and time budgeting (cf. Sundbo, 1992b). In the Danish case study, the employees and managers in two of the firms were asked to estimate how much time they used for entrepreneurship activities within one week. This gave a certain insight into resource spending, although it was a rough measure. The conclusion is that very tight economic control of empowerment is difficult. A combination of economic control and time studies could give the finn some control of the use of resources for empowerment, but it is not sufficient for ensuring that the firms do not over-allocate resources for empowerment (cf. Sundbo, 1992b).

10.8 Pracl~calinstmnents for stimulatingen~epreneurship

Different instruments for stimulating entrepreneurship were used in the firms studied. Primarily, idea generation was stimulated. The instruments used for idea procurement were internal magazines, internal marketing, particularly through middle managers, and boxes in which the employees could put notes with ideas and proposals. The last instrument in particular procured many ideas. The import factor was not only the instruments as such, but also the general impression that management wanted entrepreneurial activity, which these instruments created. They functioned as a sign of empowerment.

11.2Sb'ategyas a onb'olmechanism
Thus, a "softer" or qualitative control mechanism is needed. The strategy functioned as such in the firms studied. It defined the framework within which the innovations must be kept. Thus, it prevented the firm from using resources on unwanted innovations. It also signals the degree of entrepreneurship and the type of innovations wanted. The strategy was a more important control mechanism in the firms studied than economic control. In the service and low-tech firms the main control mechanism was a combination of the strategy and a continuous decision path through different stages of the innovation process (cf. Sundbo, 1992a), as will be explained below.

11. CONTROL MECHANISMS 11.1Economicand time-usecontrol

Economic control of innovation and empowerment activities is evident from a traditional economic point of view, but is very difficult. All firms studied attempted to have some economic control over the innovation activities. In particular, economic control was successful in the late stages of the innovation process where the innovation was developed into a completed business project. These stages were generally organized as project groups. The problems were mostly in the early stages of the entrepreneurship process. Innovation activities, in particular entrepreneurship activities, are by nature impossible to plan in economic terms. It is not possible to foresee how many resources are needed or the degree of success of an innovation project. This is even the case in the late stages of development, although it is a little easier to control economy. Corporate entrepreneurship where many people are involved is particularly difficult to plan. If one is lucky, it is possible to count the resources used in economic terms after an innovation project has been completed. However, even that is difficult because employees execute entrepreneurship activities together with other activities. The entrepreneurship activities cannot be clearly identified, limited and counted in economic terms. Thus. economic control is only of limited value. Another possibility for controlling corporate entrepreneurship activities is the use of time studies

11.3 Decisionstagesin the innoval~n process

The innovation process was executed in the firms in a way that supported the entrepreneurship activities, but it was done in a systematic and organized way which also made control possible. The innovation process can be described by a linear model with the following stages.
11.3.1 Idea generation

Ideas come from one or several entrepreneurs.

11.3.2 Transformation into an innovation process

The entrepreneur must convince somebody in the organization of the value of his idea. In the literature it is concluded that the corporate entrepreneur often has a supporter (a champion (Burgelman and Sayles, 1986) or sponsor (Pinchot, 1985)) which is one person. In these case studies it was difficult to find such individual supporters. The role was collectively organized and executed by departments or groups. It was mostly played by the top management directly, but it could also be the management of a certain department. Whatever, the top management generally demanded to have the idea presented and it was they who decided whether to go on with it and transform it into a business idea. The last means that the idea

TechnovatiooVol. 16 No. 8

J. Sundbo

should be developed further, e.g. by assessing its market potentials.

innovations outside this were accepted. His way of thinking was both an inspiration and a limitation for the innovation activities. The danger is that all innovation capacity is bound up to this top entrepreneur. If he fails, everything goes wrong. It did so in the two firms in the case studies. Both firms have lost a great deal of money from this type of entrepreneurship and one of them has gone bankrupt. The problem is: Who should control the top manager? Some of the top entrepreneur's ideas were catastrophic failures. The employees and the other managers in the two firms used much time sorting out the most unrealistic of them. However, they were not able to sort all of them out.

11.3.3 Development
If the result of the second phase was that the idea was commercially sustainable, it should be developed into a prototype. This decision was again taken by the top management. If it was decided to go on, a project group with representatives from a broad range of departments was normally set up.

11.3.4 Implementation
When the innovation had been developed to a prototype and been tested, e.g. on customer groups, it had to be implemented. That means that it should be realized, the production process should be planned (if it is a product innovation) or changed (if it is a process or organizational innovation). This is a process which involves a large number of people in the organization. However, again it was the top management in most of the firms studied who decided whether to implement the innovation. This is a kind of linear model that has been criticized in recent innovation literature (Kline, 1985; van den Ven et al., 1989). It describes a path that many of the innovations in these case studies have followed. The management structure attempted to manage the innovation process so it followed this linear model. However, it is an ideal model because many deviations from the model were also observed, for example, due to free entrepreneurship. Thus, the innovation processes were often more complex and diffuse than described in the linear model above.

11.6Organizational learning
Perhaps the most efficient, but also the most difficult, way to balance empowering is organizational learning (cf. Argyris and SchOn, 1978; Senge, 1990). If the organization and its managers are able to continuously learn from mistakes and successes and change the innovation organization and empowerment system, the firm has a chance of developing a better innovation capability. Since innovation and empowerment are such complex and insecure processes, this may be the best control mechanism. It should lead to an adaptation of the organization to changes in the environment. It should also lead to experiences which inform the organization about the efficiency of various innovation resources and about the most dangerous activities. The conclusion of the case studies was that the most efficient balancing of empowerment is obtained by having an institutionalized learning process and a certain degree of free entrepreneurship. The learning could be institutionalized by having methods or functions that collect and systematize experiences and use them for changing the entrepreneurship organization system (like the linear stage model above). However, innovation can probably never be a completely rational process, thus a certain amount of free entrepreneurship which is not guided by former experiences is needed. One part of learning is experiences concerning how much free entrepreneurship should be allowed in different situations. However, none of the firms in the case study had a perfect learning system. Apparently they were searching for help from research and consultancy for prescriptions of a learning system.

11.4InnovalJon deparbnent
The innovation departments mentioned above also functioned as a control mechanism. It sorted out the ideas, and those which the department found were in accordance with the strategy were presented to the top management for decision on whether to go further. The innovation department is a department with communication tasks that should improve, but also control empowerment. Innovation departments could be an effective balancing factor if they function efficiently. However, it was observed in the case studies that the innovation departments had a tendency to over-emphasize their role as a strategic controller. The managers and employees of the department were more interested in power than entrepreneurship. Thus, the innovation-inducing role of the department was somewhat neglected.

11.5 Top enb'epreneur The existence of the top entrepreneur also functioned as a control mechanism. In both of the firms with a top entrepreneur, he was so dominant that most new ideas were created "in his own image". Not many

]2. CONCLUSION:A MODELOF THE BALANCING

The issue treated in this article has been how empowerment is balanced, i.e. stimulated and controlled. I have argued theoretically for the thesis that the

406 TedmovaSon 16No.S Vol.

The balancingof empowerment

stimulation of empowerment can produce a competitive advantage and make the firm grow, but that it must be balanced. Empirically, I found that several Danish firms are consciously stimulating and balancing the empowerment. The balancing act in the studied Danish case firms can be described by a model of a dual organization structure: a loosely coupled interaction structure, which is an informal structure in which entrepreneurship thrives, and a management structure, which induces and controls free entrepreneurship. Thus, corporate entrepreneurship can be stated as an institutionalized process--i.e, a process with certain norms, rules and regulations--in many service and low-tech firms. It might also be a process in hightech firms besides R&D activities. Corporate entrepreneurship as an institutionalized process means empowerment where a broad range of employees and managers are activated as entrepreneurs in the innovation process. The empowerment structure is a central element in the innovation capability of the firm

and should be developed if the firm wants to improve its innovation resources. The interaction between the loosely coupled interaction system and the management structure can be summarized in Fig. 1. Strategy was the general steering factor for the innovation process and the most important control mechanism in combination with a continuous decision path. How the empowerment is--and ought to be--balanced between inducement and control depends on two factors. One is where in the product life cycle the enterprise is placed (cf. Sundbo, 1992b)--whether it is in a recovery phase that demands innovations or in a phase where the market for current products is growing by itself. The other is the chosen strategy-whether it is a permanent offensive product differentiation strategy, a productivity-maximizing strategy, or a more passive adaptation strategy. Different mechanisms are used for optimizing the

Mechanisms:

Openness and networking Empowerment o f cus turners Strategy Corporate culture Rewards Innovation department Top-en trepreneur Practical ins trumen ts

The inducement system

Management system ~

JFreeentrepreneurship 1 Iproducing "wild" ideasJ [ Entrepreneurship ]

sManagement Pre~entsideastl Entrepreneurs I ystem -

filters l
Management system
Mechanisms: Economic and time-use control Strategy

The control system

Innovation process stages and decision path Innovation department Top- entrepreneur Organizational learning
Fig. 1, Model of balancing innovation empowerment,

Technova~on 16No. 407 Vol. 8

J.Sundbo

innovation capability and balancing the empowerment. Most of them are not strictly rational mechanisms in the way that the effort and effect can be measured quantitatively. They are "softer" or "qualitatively" behaviour-regulating mechanisms like strategy, decision path in the innovation process, organizational learning, etc. There is no rational economic resource allocation model which can solve the problem of balancing empowerment - - at least not for the time being, and there probably never will be. A certain degree of economic control, and even better, time measurement, can be a supplement to the other, less rational mechanisms. An empirical conclusion is that the firms studied in these case studies were not optimally efficient in creating a balancing mechanism which both induced and controlled corporate entrepreneurship. This may probably also be the case in many other firms. However, the firms have not much help from the science of economics and organizational theory because there are not many prescriptive models available. More research and modelling is thus needed. This study has contributed to developing the resource based or strategical approach to innovation studies by emphasizing the human resource as an innovative capability.

REFERENCES
Abernathy, W.J. and Utterback, J.M. (1978). Patterns of industrial innovations. Technological Review, 80, June, 2-29. Aldrich, H.E. (1979). Organizations and Environments. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Andersen, E.S. (1994). Evolutionary Economics-Post-Schumpeterian Contributions. Pinter, London. Argyris, C. and Sch6n, D. (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Baumol, W.J. (1968). Entrepreneurship in economic theory. American Economic Review, 58(2), 64-71. Binks, M. and Vale, P. (1990). Entrepreneurship and Economic Change. McGraw-Hill, London. Binswanger, H.P. (ed.) (1978). Induced Innovation. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Washington. Burgelman, R.A. and Sayles, L.R. (1986). Inside Corporate Innovation: Strategy, Structure and Managerial Skills. Free Press, New York. Burns, T. and Stalker, G.M. (1961). The Management of Innovation. Social Science Paperbacks, London. Casson, M. (1982). The Entrepreneur. Maryin Robertson, Oxford. Drucker, P. (1985). Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Harper and Row, New York. Eiglier, P. and Langeard, E. (1988). Servuction. McGraw-Hill, Paris. Giddens, A. (1987). Social Theory and Modern Sociology. Polity Press, Cambridge.

Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1970). The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine, Chicago, IL. Grtinroos, C. (1990). Service Management and Marketing: Managing the Moments of Truth in Service Competition, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA. Hippel, E. von (1988). The Sources of Innovation. Oxford University Press, New York. Kanter, R.M. (1983). The Change Masters. Unwin Paperbacks, London. Kanter, E.R. (1989). When the Giants Learn to Dance. Routledge, London. Kirzner, I. (1973). Competition and Entrepreneurship. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Kline, S. (1985). Innovation is not a linear process. Research Management, 28(4), 36-45. Knights, D. and Morgan, G. (1991). Strategic discourse and subjectivity: towards a critical analysis of corporate strategy in organizations. Organization Studies, 12(2), 251-274. Leibenstein, H. (1966). Allocative efficiency v. "xefficiency". American Economic Review, 56(3), 392-415. Lundvall, B.-,~. (1988). Innovation as an interactive process: from user-producer interaction to the national system of innovation. In: Dosi, G., Freeman, C., Nelson, R., Silverberg, G. and Soete, L. (eds.). Technical Change and Economic Theory. Pinter, London. Mintzberg, H. (1989). Mintzberg on Management. Free Press, New York. Nelson, R. and Winter, S.G. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Belknap, Cambridge, MA. Normann, R. (1991). Service Management, 2 edn. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Nystr6m, H. (1979). Creativity and Innovation. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK. Nystr6m, H. (1990). Technological and Market Innovation. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK. Penrose, E. (1959). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Blackwell, New York. Peters, T.J. and Waterman, R.H. (1982). In Search of Excellence. Harper and Row, New York. Pettigrew, A. (1992). The character and significance of strategy process research. Strategic Management Journal, 13, Winter, 5-16. Pinchot, G. (1985). lntrapreneuring. Harper and Row, New York. Porter, M. (1980). Competitive Strategy. Free Press, New York. Porter, M. (1990). The Competitive Advantage of Nations. Macmillan, New York. Rothwell, R. and Zegfeld, W. (1985). Reindustrialization and Technology. Longman, Harlow, UK. Rumelt, R.P. (1987). Theory, strategy and entrepreneurship. In: Teece, D.J. (ed.). The Competitive Challenge. Ballinger, Cambridge, MA. Rumelt, R.P., Schendel, D. and Teece, D.J. (1994). Fundamental Issues in Strategy. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Schumpeter, J. (1934). The Theory of Economic

408 TechnovalJon 16 No.8 VoL

balancingof enlpowerment

Development. Oxford University Press, Harvard,

MA. Schumpeter, J. (1943). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Unwin, London. Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline, The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Century Business, New York. Simons, R. (1994). Levers of Control: How Managers

Use Innovative Control Systems to Drive Strategic Renewal. Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA. Simons, R. (1995). Control in the age of empowerment. Harvard Business Review, M a r c h April, 80-88. Stacey, R.D. (1993). The Chaos Frontier: Creative Strategic Control for Business. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford. Strategic Management Journal (1990). Special Issue on Corporate Entrepreneurship, ed. by Schendel, D. and Channon, D. 11, Summer. Sundbo, J. (1992a). The tied entrepreneur. Creativity and Innovation Management, 1(3), 109-20. Sundbo, J. (1992b). The firm as a dynamic system: Strategic innovation management. Business Annals 1992. Department of Social Sciences, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark. Sundbo, J. (1994). Modulization of service production. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 10(3), 245-266. Teece, D.J. (ed.) (1987). The Competitive Challenge. Ballinger, Cambridge, MA.

Teece, D.J. and Pisano, G. (1994). The dynamic capability of the firms: an introduction. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3(3), 537-56. Tushman, M. and Moore, W. (eds.) (1988). Readings in the Management of Innovation, 2rid edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA. van den Ven, A.H., Angle, H.L. and Poole, M.S. (eds.) (1989). Research on the Management ~?f Innovation: The Minnesota Studies. Harper and Row, New York. Wegloop, P. (1995). Linking firm strategy and government action: towards a resource based perspective on innovation and technology policy. Technology and Socieo', 17(4), forthcoming. Williamson, O.W. (1975). Markets and Hierarchies. Free Press, New York. Jon Sundbo is an Associate Professor in Organization at the Department of Social Sciences, Roskilde University, Denmark. He has written a Ph.D. thesis on innovation theory. Research areas are innovation, service sector development and organization and management of service firms, Human Resource Management. He has published international articles on these topics. He is the leader of the Centre of Service Studies, Roskilde University, which is Denmark's ~ ~.i only institution for service research, director ~ T M of Roskilde University's Ph.D. programme in Innovation Studies, director of several large research projects on intbrmation technology development, organizationand service, co-ordinatorof the Danish part of an EU project on innovation in business services, and consultant to several Danish service firms and organizations.

TechnovaSen 16 No. $ Vol.

409

Translations of abstracts

The balancingof empowennent. A skategic resource based model of organizing innovation activities in service and Iow-tech firms
Jon Sundbo
Technovation 16(8) (1996), 397-409

Donner des pouvoirs el des responsabilit~s:Comment trouver le bon ~quilibre?

nismes d6clencheurs les plus importants se sont av6r6s Etre la strat6gie, certains d6partements d'innovation et certains instruments pratiques qui servent faire na3tre des id6es. Le travail en r6seau comme le passage de pouvoirs et de responsabilit6 h des clients sont des m6canismes sous-exploit6s. Les m6canismes de contr61e les plus importants sont la strat6gie et une organisation lin6aire du processus d'innovation. L'apprentissage organisationnel s'av6re comme &ant le m6canisme de contr61e le plus efficace, mais il est difficile de le mettre en pratique. Ci-dessous, un modble de syst~me bien 6quilibr6. Copyright 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd

R sum
Donner ~ certains employ6s les pouvoirs pour agir en tant qu'entrepreneurs au sein de l'entreprise dans le processus d'innovation est important. Toutefois, il est important garder le contr61e et donc de trouver le bon 6quilibre. Dans cet article, nous essayons de r6pondre h deux questions: Les entreprises trouvent le juste 6quilibre lorsqu'elles passent certains pouvoirs et encouragent-elles l'innovation? Si oui, comment s'organisent-elles et comment r6ussissent-elles? Premi~rement, le fait de donner des pouvoirs et des responsabilit6s en mati~re d'innovation sera d6battu de faqon th6orique dans le cadre des ressources th6oriques de l'entreprise. Les entreprises ont la possibilit6 de mettre en place deux types de syst~mes pour l'organisation des activit6s d'innovation. Le premier est le syst~me du sp6cialiste (par exemple les d6partements R&D). L'autre syst~me consiste ~ donner des pouvoirs et des responsabilit6s. Donner des pouvoirs et des responsabilit6s est essentiel au sein des entreprises de basse technologie et de services. Donner des pouvoirs et des responsabilit6s c'est entreprendre au sein mEme de l'entreprise sous le contr61e de la direction; par opposition au fait d'entreprendre librement (de faqon incontr616e) au sein de l'entreprise. L'argument en faveur du contr61e du passage de pouvoirs et de responsabilit6s est qu'il existe un risque d'utilisation trop grande des ressources de l'entreprise. Deuxi~mement, les deux questions serons discut6es de faqon empirique en nous fondant sur des 6tudes de cas dans des entreprises danoises: presque toutes ces entreprises encouragent le passage de pouvoirs et de responsabilit6s; un nombre moins important, mais constituant toujours la majorit6 le contr61e. Nous avons d6tect6 les m6canismes d6clencheurs qui stimulent le passage de pouvoirs et de responsabilit6s ainsi que les m6canismes de contr61e. Les m6ca-

Der Ausgleich yon ErmiicidJ~ng. Ein strategisches, ressourcenfundiertes Modell zur Organisierung von Innovationsaktivititen in Dienstleistungsunternehmen und Low-TechFirmen

Abriss
Die Erm~ichtigung von Angestellten zu vereinigten Unternehmern im Innovationsproze[3 ist wichtig. Es ist jedoch trotzdem wichtig, dies zu kontrollieren und damit auszugleichen. In diesem Aufsatz versuchen wir, zwei Fragen zu beantworten: stimulieren und gleichen Firmen Innovationserm~ichtigung aus und, wenn dies der Fall ist, wie organisieren und leiten sie dies? Zuerst diskutieren wir Innovationserm~ichtigung theoretisch im Rahmen der ressourcenfundierten Theorie des Unternehmens. Firmen k6nnten zwei Systeme zur Organisierung von Innovationsaktivit~iten etablieren. Das eine ist das Expertensystem (normalerweiser in F&Esabteilungen). Das andere ist das Ermfichtigungssystem. Dieses System ist besonders wichtig fur Low-Tech- und Dienstleistungsunternehmen. Das Erm~ichtigungssystem ist organisiertes vereinigtes Unternehmertum, das von der Gesch~iftsleitung kontrolliert wird - im Gegensatz zu freiem (unkontrolliertem) vereinigtem Unternehmertum. Ein Argument ftir die Kontrolle von Erm~ichtigung ist, da[3 sie zu leicht zu viele Ressourcen verbrauchen ktinnte. Danach werden beide Fragen empirisch auf der Grundlage von Fallstudien in d~inischen Firmen diskutiert. Fast alle Firmen praktizierten die Stimulierung von Erm~ichtigung. Weniger, aber immer noch fast alle, praktizierten die Kontrolle von Ermachtigung. Wir fanden Anreizmechanismen, die die Ermachtigung stimulieren und Kontrollmechanismen. Die wichtigsten Anreize waren Strategie, spezielle Innovationsabteilungen und praktische Instrumente zut Beschaffung und Herbeiftihrung von Ideen. Beziehungspflege und die Ermachtigung von Kunden waren Mechanismen, die zu wenig benutzt wurden.

TedmovaHon 16 No.8 445 VoL

Translations of abslracts

Die wichtigsten Kontrollmechanismen waren Strategie und die lineare Organisation des Innovationsprozesses. Organisatorisches Lernen ist der wirkungsvollste Kontrollmechanismus, aber schwer durchzuftihren. Ein Modell des Ausgleichsystems wird vorgeschlagen. Copyright 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd

Science policy vs. technology policy?

Borisz Szdnt6

Technovation, 16(8) (1996) 411-420

Face a Face: politique

scientffique conl~e poliUque

Equilibrar al empoderamiento Un modelo para organizar las actividades de innovaci6n en las empresas de servicio y de baja tecnologia basado en los recursos eslTat~cos

technologique
Resume
Au stade sup6rieur de l'6volution cognitive le concept de gestion d'innovation 6volue vers une conception strat6gique du mouvement 6volutionniste conscient et socio-technique. Cet article explore la question de savoir pourquoi ?~ ce stade sup6rieur de l'6volution humaine les politiques scientifiques conventionnelles doivent confronter des concepts d'engineering sur le d6veloppement de la technologie. Et pourquoi en d6pit de cela, les politiques scientifiques et technologiques ne font qu'une dans leur intention? La nouvelle alliance entre la science, la technologie et la soci6t6 forment un concept selon un certain mod6le de d6veloppement dont nous nous servons toujours en Europe et qui nous fait consid6rer que la science et la technologie sont des facteurs endog6nes de l'6conomie. Or c'est faux. Cet article soul6ve la question de savoir si hun niveau d'6volution socio-technologique plus 61ev6, les avanc6es technologiques et scientifiques peuvent vraiment 6tre regard6es comme des ressources faisant partie du d6veloppement 6conomique qui soient productrices de connaissances, comme les fonctions d'une accumulation de capitaux. On argumente dans des milieux gouvernementaux ainsi que dans certaines entreprises que le probl~me de l'approche de l'ing6nierie h la cr6ation et h l'implantation de l'avantage technologique d'une part et que le probl6me de la cognition scientifique d'autre part devraient de faqon conceptuelle ne constituer qu'une seule et marne intention. Mais par contre, qu'elles sont s6par6es au niveau de la r6alisation, du fait de leur directions diff6rentes. Le concept de politiques de science et politiques de technologies devrait ~tre donc r6examin6 puis divis6 en fonction de la situation. Copyright 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd

Resumen
E1 empoderamiento de los empleados como empresarios corporativos en el proceso de la innovaci6n es importante. Tambi6n es importante, sin embargo, controlar y equilibrar ese empoderamiento. En este art/culo se intenta contestar a dos preguntas: /,las empresas estimulan y equilibran el empoderamiento en la innovaci6n? y, en caso afirmativo, /,c6mo lo organizan y c6mo lo administran? En primer lugar se comenta te6ricamente el empoderamiento en la innovaci6n, dentro del marco de la teorfa de la empresa basada en los recursos. Las empresas pueden establecer dos sistemas para organizar las actividades de innovaci6n. E1 primero es el sistema experto (tfpicamente departamentos de investigaci6n y desarrollo); el otro es el sistema de empoderamiento. E1 sistema de empoderamiento es especialmente importante en las empresas de baja tecnologfa y de servicios. E1 sistema de empoderamiento viene a ser la compafifa empresarial gestionada pot la administraci6n - en comparaci6n con la empresa corporativa libre (no controlada). La ventaja de controlar el empoderamiento es que se puede fficilmente sino utilizar demasiados recursos. A continuaci6n se comentan empfricamente las dos preguntas bas~ndose en estudios de caso de empresas danesas. Casi todas las empresas fomentaban el empoderamiento. Menos empresas, pero todavfa la mayorfa, controlaban el empoderamiento. Se descubrieron mecanismos para estimular el empoderamiento y mecanismos de control. Entre los mecanismos m~s importantes de estimulaci6n fueron ias estrategias, algunos departamentos especializados en la innovaci6n e instrumentos prficticos para atraer las ideas. Las relaciones interlazadas y el empoderamiento de los clientes son mecanismos no aprovechados el m~ximo. Los mecanismos de control mils importantes fueron la estrategia y una organizaci6n linear del proceso de innovaci6n. E1 mecanismo de control mils eficiente es la formaci6n corporativa, pero es diffcil llevarlo a cabo. Se propone un modelo del sistema de equilibrio. Copyright 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd

WissenschaftspoliUkversusTeclmlo~polibk

Abriss
Auf der h6heren Stufe der kognitiven Evolution verschiebt sich das Konzept des Innovationsmanagements zu einem strategischen Design der bewul3ten sozio-technischen evolutionaren Bewegung. In dieser Arbeit untersuchen wir die Frage, warum konventionelle Wissenschaftspolitik dem technischen Kon-

446 Tedmovation 16 No.8 Vol.